25 March 2001
Bootlegs and Napster
I recently read an article that Sean blogged about bands who are starting to bitch and moan when they perform new songs only to find them distributed on Napster. For the most part, I am sympathetic to the complaints of artists who would rather not have their copyrighted CDs "shared" by the thousands of people who use napster. Yes, CDs are often overpriced (though there are sales, discount merchants, and used stores, but those do require some effort in order to take advantage), the record companies have been a pain in the ass and dragged their feet on internet distribution, and people have long made cassette copies of cds and "shared" them with individuals -- but I still have trouble with the notion that just because technology exists almost perfectly to reproduce the work of others without compensation, I'm entitled to do so. I guess the sense of entitlement is what is most amazing to me. I read a post today from someone on the Reckless Kelly official site to the lead singer of the band letting him know that virtually all of the new Black Crowes CD is available on napster (the lead singer is allegedly a fan), and if he couldn't get it, he'd be happy to burn him a copy of the CD! I find that attitude amazing enough -- but throw in the fact he's posting it TO THE LEAD SINGER OF AN INDIE BAND THAT'S STRUGGLING JUST TO MAKE THE RENT PAYMENT, and it's even more audacious. That's all I have to say on that, however, because I've veered off topic.
My main topic tonight is those artists complaining that live versions of their work -- especially new songs -- are finding their way onto Napster. The real complaint of the bands in the article seems to be that people are making and distributing bootleg copies of shows at all, and that hits a little closer to home, since I have become quite fond of making bootleg copies of live shows for me and friends who have gone to those same shows. I view this as a legitimate "personal use" of that material (and it's no small effort to tape those shows, remaster them, and burn them, not to mention the cost of the equipment), although I respect the right of the band not to allow bootleg recording devices in their shows if they are opposed to it (I'll never attend another show of a band with that policy, which is my own right). Since I've never used napster, there's no issue of my distributing the bootleg songs over the internet per se. However, on the 8 More Miles site, we DO post live clips of RK live songs we've recorded, and we DO post a live MP3 of the month. Obviously, the Windows Media clips are not of the highest quality, but the live MP3 is of fairly high quality. We did tell the band they could veto us putting 'em up if they wanted, and they haven't (they seem to enjoy the exposure). But I'm fairly certain that of the 100 or so people who download the mp3 each month, a fair number of those people are using napster -- and thus the high quality clips are proliferating. In our own case, the band doesn't really care (although I'm still inclined to cut down the quality of the mp3). But some bands do care, and I wonder what sorts of copyright issues that raises.
Apparently, the Dave Matthews Band for some time has been opposed to live bootleg recordings, which is something I don't really understand. Yes, there's this notion as was stated in the yahoo article that it's "mildly irritating for it to debut in this fashion [APC's live set] before feeling it has been properly realized" (umm... so why are you PLAYING it at all?!), or Neil Young's strange notion "I don't want people to listen to my music if I don't want them to" (umm.... yes, that makes sense. Freak) or even the notion that somehow bootlegs are going to hurt the revenue stream. On that last, I like the response I got from a member of a Texas indie ("We kind of like to have the buzz going") or that of the Counting Crows' Adam Duritz, lifted from Lisa's fan site:
f#ck those sh!theads from the dmb [Dave Matthews Band] folder with their crap about banning the sale of bootleg recordings. i happen to love bootlegs and i think these people who work so hard at wiping out live bootlegs are small minded greedy ass clowns. if someone is going to spend $30 on a bootleg, they probably already bought 4 copies of your record. these goat f#ckers are just ruining something wonderful for the rest of us. may animals sh!t on their feet.
I also was lucky enough to hear (and record!) Adam ask a crowd once "Who is recording bootlegs?" only to scold the suddenly hushed audience because, as he put it, "How the hell are your friends who couldn't get tickets gonna listen?" That's refreshing! Because it's right.Anyway, my guess is that record companies are now going to go after bootlegs in a big way, and try to tie the issue to the open thievery that was the premise behind Napster. It's a shame that bands (or at least their record companies) feel such a need to go after GOOD fans as well as bad. I love that the Counting Crows openly encourage bootlegs, and have even released some "official" bootlegs of shows. That's a brilliant idea. The Grateful Dead were just such a fan's band. I'll bet Jerry Garcia himself probably owned half the old tape bootlegs that fans made of the legendary band (though I do wonder about the quality if the recordings, given the altered state that many if not most of the fans were in). I really enjoy the fact that the Texas Indie artists we see so often have no problem with it -- in fact, I need to cut Mary Cutrufello a CD of her recent Rudz show, because she wanted one. That's cool. People like that deserve all the best (including many sales of their commercial releases).
The anti-bootleg crowd? To paraphrase Adam, may animals defecate on their toes.
[Posted @ 12:52 AM CST]
COMMENTS
he didn't say "deficate on their toes" you censor-er you! ;)
[Posted by jonelin on 25 March 2001, 03:25 PM CST]
